Skip to content or view screen version

The Greens do not have the guts

Opexer | 01.12.2001 14:22

Not only the German Greens have sold out, but most others have gone along as well. The Green/EFA Group in the European Parliament voted in favour of the war. It's time to move on.

Daniel Brett launched a powerful discussion on the Greens in an earlier posting
(number 17293, linked below) which I think might be continued here, especially as Luther Blissett messed it up, the eejit.

It looks as though, as result of that discussion, and in particular the election this week of Jean Lambert MEP to the Green/EFA Bureau, he has resigned from the Green Party. I must say I have some sympathy with that stand, having done the same myself many years ago. At some point you have to shout stop.

On the other hand, Matt argues in effect that you need to be inside the tent pissing out, to be able to have some influence on the corrupting process inside. Sad to say that is always the argument of those who sell out in the end. We should be inside the tent with great reluctance, continually passing messages to those on the outside, not pissing on them. At some point, the hypocrisy gets too much, and it's time to leave, and start again, ie: now! What we have learned from our last visit should be applied to our next one. I would now argue that the Greens are all but done as an ecological party, having sold out as a NIMBY type environmental party, which feels we need to keep the peasants abroad under control, to protect our privilege and comfort. That approach may well find a political constituency, made up of selfish middle class types. Consequently, it reinforces the system, prevents change, and is therefore simply wrong.

To return to the Green/EFA Group for a moment, Daniel and everyone else need to understand another thing. He berates the German Greens for their support of the war. However, give them some credit for being honest, although in reality their system forces them to declare their position. What are the French Greens doing - is not France supplying military support, while they are in government. Have a good look around Europe, and see what Greens in Government are doing, in Belgium, Finland. The Swedish Greens have supported a minority government, but I cannot imagine they supported the government on the war, or…?

So when it comes to the Green/EFA Group, you should know that a large majority supported the war in a special vote, which was at least more honest than saying nothing about the Kosovo war at the time. The Germans alone are not the problem. Greens throughout Europe have sold out. And it is a measure of the transparency of the Greens in the European Parliament that this is not widely known, even within the member parties. So you can metaphorically tear up that position statement on their website, along with the rest of the rubbish on there.

Anyway, environment is an important issue to the survival of life on this planet, including human kind, but it is not the only issue. It is now well and truly on the political agenda, and the Greens have served their purpose. Why flog a dead horse? Let's move on, and base our politics around other issue as well as ecology, say transparency, direct democracy, localisation, simplification of our enormously complex systems (which actually makes democracy impossible), etc etc.

Opexer
- Homepage: http://uk.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=17293&group=webcast

Comments

Hide the following 13 comments

Read the Green Party manifesto

01.12.2001 14:43

I acknowledge some of what you say...as I've been writing consistently, being a member or even activist of a particular political party is nowhere near enough if you want to achieve lasting social change. However, I still believe it is useful...why? Well, look at what you recommend at the end of your opinion; a party that supports transparency, social justice, localisation etc. Read the Green Party manifesto, and tell me it isn't radical, that it doesn't support those things, and that it doesn't clearly put itself on our side. Sure, there are some problems...I'm afraid there always are when you group together with other people, but that isn't a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yours,

Matt

Matt S


Actions count, not words

01.12.2001 15:13

Sure the manifesto is tip top, just like the ones of all the European Green parties. So how come they voted for the war,and nobody can stop them? You need strict mechanisms to keep representatives in line with party policy, and sorry, the Greens haven't a clue in that department, and show no signs of sorting it. Now what?

Opexer


What baby?

01.12.2001 19:25

When there was that fuel crisis a while ago, the greens said nothing. Now they are all going along with the war. In Austria they are failing to make much fuss over Temelin (the extreme right wing FPÖ seems to be doing a better job of that) and meanwhile the EBRD is about to create another two 'Schrottreaktors' in the Ukraine. And it doesn't matter whether I look at Joschka Fischer or Darryl Johnson or any of the others, somehow I always seem to see a professional politician in a suit who I just KNOW is exceeding his organic limits by miles.
Leaving the complete insanity of the war to one side and just thinking about all the Schrottreaktors we are expected to finance, the ecological irrationality and, since Thatcher's failed attempt to privatise nuclear power, the economic irrationality are so mind boggeling that I cannot see any point in bother to even think about going in the tent.

Tim


Going in for the War?

01.12.2001 19:54

Sure, actions speak louder than words. Which is why there were over 30 local green parties at the November 18th anti-war demonstration, why the National Green party has stated its opposition to the war clearly, and why speakers like Mike Woodin and Darren Johnson have spent a great deal of their time speaking out against it.

Actions and words speak loudest.

Matt

Matt S


Multi-tracking

01.12.2001 21:12

OK, so the Green Party in various countries is in the hands of reactionary types and sells out its members ? And your other original information is ? Seriously though, it would be a good idea for people to step back from the hothouse world of the "radical milieu" and take a look at reality. The reality is the vast majority of people under capitalism in the "advanced" West are to a greater or lesser extent mind controlled by the system - only a few are able to break free from this, and this is not some elitist statement, but an observation. So, any party or group UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS OF SOCIAL REALITY will, even if founded by people from the minority who have broken free from the mind control in some (usually partial - and I include myself in this)way, will accumulate people who are less and less free of the mind set promoted by the "Real World" (controlled reality)- in the gradual takeover of the formerly radical group, the "realists" will be able to argue just that - that they are in touch with "reality", and their radical opponents are not. With the victory of the "More realist" element, a new "ultra realist" faction will emerge to drag them further towards conformity and so on. We need to ask how the "controlled reality" is manufactured and maintained in the minds of the masses. Both Chomsky and the situationists had some interesting things to say on that issue. Unless a way is established to "block" or "jam" the mind control mechanisms for more than the small numbers (the radical milieu) who are to a greater or lesser extent naturally immune, progress towards a freer, ecologically sound and crucially "transparent" society will occur only when or if the elite above the mind control process allow it - i.e. slowly or never. For the activist on the ground the implication is - don't idealise any group or party as the "way" - all, no matter how "radical" are subject to the process described above - if successful (of course they may stay pure - but usually at the price of staying small and irrelevant.)The other implication is, as I have said on this site in a number of guises, is that one of the crucial tasks for any radical challenge at the present time is to spread a critique of the control mechanism as widely as possible and to engage in what is often derided as "conspiracy theory" - i.e. work out which groups and individuals, powers and interests are running the show and how - and how much of "accepted reality" is quite simply LIES. So, if you want to split from the Greens or whoever, fine, but don't just reproduce the error as those splitting with social democracy have usually done. What would really scare the "hidden hands" would be if we stayed wherever we were politically in terms of membership but launched the critique I am suggesting from there - this might reach more than the tiny numbers in the radical milieu. Anyhow, try not to die like a dog...as someone once said.

King Mob


it's the hypocrisy that really bugs me

01.12.2001 21:31

I not try fancy stuff, keep it too a minimum. bejazus !
Seems there are people involved in this debate that are much better informed than me. If you get onto documenting actual
cases of green dodgyness, I man can supply some names and relevant facts. What really pisses me off is the hypocrisy, you expect to find right wing parties like conservatives and labour in the pocket of big business, that's normal, and as a result, big business does what ever it pleases, profits soar and the quality of life and social justice go out of the window. When you find the greens are doing exactly the same and bumming up to Chemical companies and other such nasties, it just makes me want to puke,...... all over them..

LB

Luther Blissett


Green Monsters

02.12.2001 00:42

The only thing that's Green is their envy for the huge profits UNocal is making. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's global warming.

H.A.A.R.P.Y


Response to Matt

02.12.2001 12:57

I agree that the Green party is radical in many ways and is the most 'red' of the parties in the EU Green grouping - that's why I joined. But I think you downplay the severity of this war and the important differences between the British Greens and Die Grünen. The fact is that Die Grünen is a part of a government that is not only supporting the war, but is ordering thousands of troops on a military exercise to support the US. This is blatantly against Green principles and the pledges of the Green group and Die Grünen's 1998 general election manifesto.

By allowing them to stay in the Green grouping undermines the entire European Green movement's credibility. By staying in alliance with Die Grünen, the British Greens are stating that the Germans' pro-war stance is in some way acceptable as a difference of opinion. I quit the Green party because I didn't want to share that platform or association with a governing party involved in another Vietnam-style conflict. Anyone that takes Die Grünen's betrayal of the Green movement serious should do the same. It doesn't matter what Darren Johnson or Margaret Wright say, it matters that the Greens keep to their principles and work with those who share their vision, not allying with war-mongerers.

Daniel Brett
mail e-mail: dan@danielbrett.co.uk


Reply to King Mob

02.12.2001 15:00

You say that it is essential activists remain part of an alliance, no matter what their differences, to ensure that the ruling class is effectively challenged. I agree. I have worked alongside SWPers, anarchists and others in campaigning on common issues and I will continue to do so outside the Green party. What I won't do is co-operate with members of a ruling elite - in this case, Die Grünen - who are fundamentally against everything I believe in and who are part of the problem.

Daniel Brett
mail e-mail: dan@danielbrett.co.uk


Yep I agree wid U Daniel

02.12.2001 16:57

I find myself in a similar situation to you Daniel, although
perhaps not SWP and not in the UK, I am involved with various groups, mostly environmental, I fairly o ftencome in contact with political parties more often then not the Greens, they love to jump on the back of environmental protest campaigns. I'm buggered if I am going to work for them.
Your personal opinion, and this whole debate seem to be centered around the GREENS and the WAR, what about their record on the environment. Waste disposal and the so called ECO MAFIA, incenerators, Renewable energy. I understand why the war is a major issue, but there are other major issues, I thought that the Greens were founded as a political party dedicated to protecting the environment. ???


Good on going discussion ...

Luther blissett


Why the war

02.12.2001 21:41

The reason this discussion is about the war because it started with my condemnation of the British Greens' alliance with Die Grünen, which has committed German troops to support the US. I don't know what your accusations are against the Greens or on what grounds you've made them. Perhaps this is a point to be discussed in another thread.

Daniel Brett
mail e-mail: dan@danielbrett.co.uk


allrightie

02.12.2001 23:01

yeah, I am more on the environMENTAL front, i'll try and put togther a few points on the environmental sell out, as I see it for the future.. next week maybe ..

LB

LB


I agree with King Mob but.....

03.12.2001 19:50

Someone just came up with a new theory that because so many of us won't go along with the greens they are desperately short of candidates to stand and so accept people who are...well, not quite up to the job shall we say, and then the whole thing degenerates into woolly NIMBY type stuff etc etc. Can't make up my mind about this so thought I would mention it here.

Tim